Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does real work: it discloses that the transaction is unsigned ('prepare (unsigned)'), that it costs nothing but gas, and that unguard imposes a 24-hour rest cooldown — a non-obvious side effect an agent must warn about. It stops short of mentioning allowance/approval state or what the returned payload contains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single dense sentence with nested parentheticals that pack a lot in but are hard to parse on first read; the action-by-action breakdown would be clearer as a list. Nothing is wasted, but the structure is not front-loaded per action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 5-parameter, 4-action mutation-preparation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers ownership prerequisites, the guards-ON gate, cost, and the unguard cooldown. The main gap is that it does not describe what the agent receives back (an unsigned tx to sign/submit) or any approval requirement.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already tags which parameters apply to which action (assetId/assetKind 'For guard and unguard', fighterId 'For bring and guard'). The description reinforces this with the 'Muscle' ownership rule for fighterId but adds little beyond the schema baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource (FighterEdge) and enumerates the four concrete operations it prepares: bring, unbring, guard, unguard. It also implicitly separates itself from the read-only sibling get_fighter_edge, which it references for state checks, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives concrete preconditions per action — 'you must own it' for bring, 'a fighter you own on a vehicle or apartment you own' for guard — and routes the agent to get_fighter_edge to confirm 'guards ON'. What's missing is explicit guidance on when to pick this versus other prepare_* siblings (e.g. prepare_roster), which an agent must infer.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.